On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:59:57 -0800 (PST) Michael Burns <burnsie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Oh hello there Infrastructure@, > > [resending this, got stock in moderation, ironically] :) I do moderate the list every day, but in the mornings. > I'm curious in both the operations side of your Mailman setup as it > exists today as well as what the (general) plans for Mailman as a > basis for your Forums are in the future. So how about I just throw > some questions at the list and see what sticks? Sounds great. Ask away! > HyperKitty[0] is a really interesting Fedora project, are there plans > to bring that to lists.fp.o in the foreseeable future? To that end, > has there been any serious attempts at migrating lists.fp.o to > Mailman v3 from v2? I am starting to look at that process in detail, > and am hoping for some tips or warnings. :) There has not yet been, but I predict we will be moving that way next year pretty heavily. Ideally, we would see some good packages for mailman3, then look at perhaps setting up a duplicate set of mailman servers that we can duplicate the setup on, etc. > Having said that, Mailman 3 has some very interesting possibilities, > particularly with something like HyperKitty running on top. The > mockups[2] for what it could end up like are pretty neat, but it > isn't clear what pieces are missing in between. It would be really > great if we can iron out a plan to get our two project's goals for a > better discussion forum system a bit closer to reality. Sure. I hope Aurélien will chime in here and we can discuss that part of things more. > As for the ops side... do you use stock Mailman rpms, or are the > patchesets that you use available for comparison? We are using the stock rhel6 ones with some hotfixes on top (mostly to disable the stupid mailman password handling, which happily goes away under 3). > Likewise, could > your puppet module(s) for mailman (similar to [1]?) be made > available, even with identifying information removed? I signed the > Fedora CLA way back when, for what it is worth. Mozilla is in the > process of auditing our puppet modules for an eventual public > release, so I realize this can be a tricky topic with regards to > security. Doesn't hurt to ask though, right? Sure, we should be able to audit that small set of stuff and figure out some way to get it to you. It's not too much I don't think, kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/infrastructure
